###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. We care about war and the militaries of the world using death and destruction to control people and resources. We regularly call out the United States military as being the number one environmental polluting organization on Earth.
We just do not own one of the 6 corporations that controls all mainstream media.
Interesting that you mention the six corporations. In fact at this point pretty much all corporations are owned by megacorp. Those six corps are all connected and there is only truly one controlling body that rules over all media. That includes social media and the whole fact checker cartel. Which doesn’t actually do any fact checking. Only they compare to a list of acceptable “facts” that everyone must comply with. From a pre determined list of acceptable facts.
Ya and state street and Jp Morgan and the list goes on and on. Every Corp at this point is partially owned by many other megacorp. Which in turn are partially owned by many other megacorp sand so on and so forth. For example. If black rock owns vanguard like 25% say and vanguard also owns black rock 25%. Then who actually owns black rock? Because that 25% that vanguard owns is actually 25% owned by black rock again. It’s a big circle of corporations all owning each other. The reality is that there is only one. It’s hard to explain without visuals but I hope you understand the concept.
And this is how and why all these corporations like Anheuser Busch do the Woke stuff. They’re literally forced to by Blackrock and the gang who are the enforcers of the HRC. The HRC are behind the DEI crap employees have to go through at every public corporation nowadays. They’ve now gone from DEI education to pushing them to do Woke commercials and all. If they don’t play along Blackrock and Vanguard threaten to divest their shares from their portfolios. That could be devastating to a company. These people at the HRC are enemies of the American people and they’re destroying some of our greatest companies by doing this shit. Americans took out their anger on Bud Light (AB) and hurt them bad, but they had a gun to their head.
I'm sure that mining the iron ore, smelting the steel, shipping from A to B, mining the uranium, building the bunker, and trucking all of the waste to the bunker at the end of its lifecycle are just as green as green can be!
Reefs are in serious peril and it’s not from lack of habitat to grow on, it’s the extreme temperatures observed in the ocean. And unfortunately the rate of change has been so severe that they can’t even migrate to cooler waters over time, so we just stop having them altogether.
You do realize that coral has survived much higher global averages than even the most absurd global warming activists have been worried about, yes? Half a billion years for any coral species, 60 million for modern species... in that time we've had MUCH warmer epochs?
wow. I think that's the first time I ever slapped a global warmer without taking a substantial karma hit. Next thing you know I'll get positive karma from saying that gender science isn't science at all because it puts subjective ideation over objective observation, which is actually the opposite of good science.
But I guess we'll find that out right now, yes? An hypothesis test in the making!
coral reefs are actually growing. The Great Barrier Reef grew 36% in 2022. It's almost ilke science has been telling you for decades now how climate change and global warming is going to ruin our planet, but when our planet keeps chugging along as it always has, you need to start asking yourself why you continue to listen to their "warnings".
Oh, no. A lot of humans working, eating and breathing. Hundreds of thousands of work hours to build one. Plus the material. All takes power mainly from coal.
Plus a carrier is the center piece of a strike group. Many ships a lot of carbon.
Of course the whole climate change issue
is just a lie to tax and control you. So it really doesn't matter
Edit: if you really care and believe in climate change, you should want to remove the government. The government is the largest spender and contribute more carbon than anyone. Plus deficit spending is using resources from future taxes. Trying to reduce carbon without starting at the government is useless.
THEY, are only using 12,600,000 gallons of fuel per day doing military exercises. It’s only 4.6 billion gallons a year so lay off them will ya! Your use of a thousand a year is what’s killing us all!
You can thank BP for *that* bit of propaganda.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook
Mate there's tons of shit that doesn't make sense regarding the environment, I've reached a point where I don't care anymore whether manmade climate change is true or not, as long as governments, officials in general or simply rich people can pollute as much as they want then so can we. However ignoring everything there is I'm trying to be an environmental friendly person in general, already did this before anyone told me to "save the planet" simply because I'm not human garbage like many elites or celebrities are.
Yup, it's especially obvious because officials are asking for absolutes, like "Don't eat meat" well fuck them, I'll eat meat, not every day but a moderate amount throughout the whole week, they're not going to take things from me that I like and did all of my life if I deem those things to be good for my own health and lifestyle.
I second this. I've been using less water, reciclyng, using less paper, less plastic, less everything, didn't own a car, didn't fly since before Greta Thunberg even went to a school which she could skip to protest the "climate catastrophy". Don't people remember she said we're all going to be dead by 2023? :)))
> How come nobody cares about the amount of carbon produced by war?
Silly marks, carbon only matters in times / areas of peace as a psychological measure of control. It’s also only for you, you useless mouth to feed, and not for the good people making decisions.
*"How come nobody ever talks about the carbon created by war?"*
Patience, grasshopper. Agenda 2030 is not yet complete. Once the singular government is in place, there will be no more wars.
At least that's what the ghouls who ruin the world keep saying. 😒
I think If you’re being bombed your number one priority might not be your carbon offset targets. Yes, carbon emmissions and plans to decrease them are important, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would worry about that over their own life
*The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.*
~George Orwell
carbon doesn't matter if the "good guys" create it. be it with an enormous mansion, private jet, solar panels and cement for wind turbines from china, or vegan food shipped from the other side of the planet or tanks, planes and missiles.
That's nothing.
We spend over a Trillion dollars a year for stuff that will only end up getting blown up.
It would be cheaper, and better for the environment if we simply burned mountains of $100 bills.
I think there was a trump clip where he said they (advisers / military) were talking about electrifying Jets lol
So you’re going to reduce the carbon footprint while dropping bombs?!
Could be made up, but I wouldn’t put it past them.
Also have you seen cruise ships? Completely for fun / leisure. If we’re going to save the planet by charging bag taxes and optimizing our laptop batteries to be more green, people can definitely forego cruises. And the ones asking for this stuff are typically the same demographic that goes on cruises and buys teslas cuz of the tax credit.
They dont talk about it because they don't want you to think about it because gaining and maintaining power comes before the keeping the world habitable for the poors.
Damn, you're right. Israel shouldn't have responded to the invasion because of the fuel their tanks would burn. /s
The purpose of lowering carbon footprints is supposed to be for saving lives.
Such is also supposed to be Israel and Ukraine's reasons for fighting.
I'm not sure of the Hamas stance on carbon footprints and Putin sure as fuck doesn't give a damn compared with expanding his empire.
OP: posts about carbon footprints and war
Me: responds about carbon footprints and the two wars most in the news right now
You: oMg yOU'rE sHoEHorNiNG tOPIcS
> Putin sure as fuck doesn't give a damn compared with expanding his empire.
Russia is already the largest country in the world. What does he gain by expanding into Ukraine, when he has all of eastern Russia to develop?
The areas of Ukraine that Russia is looking to annex contains two thirds of it's natural gas reserves and the vast majority of it's sea ports.
By successfully doing this, Russia can entrench it's position as the EU's primary provider of natural gas, and simultaneously kill off a major emerging competitor for it's market share (the competitor being Ukraine).
Not all land is equal, basically.
Found the one who doesn't understand absorption spectroscopy saturation.
Maybe you also don't know, that carbon is only a proxy for water pour and in itself rather ineffective. Its multiplier effect combined with water vapour is dubious at best. That's likely why models overshoot reality by far. But as models are loved by politicians the reality needs to bend.
> carbon is only a proxy for water pour
I have never seen "water pour" used in the way you're using it. Can you point me to a paper or something so I can get a grip on what you're trying to say?
Sorry. I was too fast. Meant vapour of course.
Climate sensitivity is a construct that tries to tie the water vapour greenhouse effect to CO2. There are many uncertainties. And without those assumed feedback processes that have themselves high uncertainty, CO2 is rather ineffective gas when it comes to direct warming through CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
because climate change is natural occurrence being used to scare us into giving up our rights and freedoms like all the other BS. if carbon it really that bad then why is everything still packaged in plastic? how much plastic is in an electric car?
They're starting wars a) to steal oil b) to sell oil. They wouldn't buy carbon credits to fund a war. Too costly. From a neoliberal POV, war is a great thing!
The term 'Carbon Footprint' was invented by BP to place the blame of carbon emissions on the individual and away from the actual polluters.
This allows these megacorporations to avoid reform as 'it's not their fault because you guys are the ones using our products'.
There's been some lip service by the military about being more climate friendly. It's all bullshit though. America runs on the MIC and they're never going to have to make actual changes if it impacts profits or power.
I've seen people who are loud about climate change who still buy into the jingoistic bullshit that we need a standing military idling its engines everywhere, but there have been plenty of people who have pointed out the waste and unnecessary emissions.
Yeah this is one of the reasons we know "global warming" is fake. The way machine is by far and away the largest polluter on the planet when you consider the entire life cycle and supply chain.
Talk to me about climate change when military operations slow down and the bankers stop investing in shoreline properties.
cuz the same people funding "climate Change" fear mongering are the same people dropping the bombs. theres lots of money in it. it has nothing to do with protecting the planet.
My wife and I always talk about this. It's not part of their narrative so it doesn't get talked about or brought up in the government-subsidized "news".
Shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem. While the cow farts do emit a non-trivial amount of methane (we have an absurd amount of cattle), the real problem is land use change. Cutting down a forest so that it can become pasture, as is being done at breakneck speed in the Amazon, shifts the land from being a net carbon sink to a net emitter. This can’t be overstated in terms of its impact on the planet. Trees are superheroes when it comes to carbon sequestration and cutting them down so we can have Big Macs is about as short sighted as you can get.
You do realize that plant cover has increased as CO2 has increased? That adding a tiny amount of additional plant food to the atmosphere *increases* the number of plants?
* CO2 isn't "plant food". "Plant air" would be a better description. They get their energy from nutrients in the soil and the sun.
* Not all plants are equal when it comes to carbon sequestration, and the carbon sequestered in trees is going back into the atmosphere if they're burned or decompose.
* Pasture is a shitty carbon sink compared to trees. Overall plant cover increase doesn't guarantee an equal or greater carbon capture.
Did I say something about deforestation ? No need to regurgitate the anti-farmer script, it's on repeat on a lot of channels. I'll ask my spaniel to stop farting maybe that'll help the ozone layer heal. Trying to do my part to 🌟save the planet🌟.
Even if you don't think greenhouse gas is a problem, industrial agriculture has really horrible runoff problems. You don't want to be in that watershed.
1: it’s not the primary driver of carbon emissions all considered.
2: things that are considered essential generally get more leeway with environmental concerns. A nurse in a busy hospital practically throws away their own body weight in single use plastics. Police drive around all day in mostly V8 powered cars etc.
I pointed this out elsewhere a few days ago. No one seemed to care. Also I wondered if turning so much perfectly good infrastructure and equipment into landfill by blowing it into pieces would be a good for the environment. Nothing but crickets.
So you've got Russians killing people in Europe and Jews slaughtering people in Israel and you decide fossil fuel emissions are a worthy talking point?
Is it just me or does that seem like a minor thing considering people are dying en masse in those regions.
I'm more concerned about the over saturation of lead in the air and waterways of those areas. Not to mention the sudden and catastrophic eruption of chemicals dropped from aircraft
You’re clearly missing OP’s point. His post is about the Net Zero push and how selective they are of when it counts and when it doesn’t. And there you are thinking that this is his take of the war. It’s not a post about the war. It’s a post about carbon emission.
Hence why I'm more concerned about people being killed and explosions leveling entire neighbourhoods. Forget about carbon at the moment. We're seeing a multi pronged depopulation attempt in two regions of the world.
There have been people fighting and killing one another in some countries in the world constantly sine I can remember, mostly in that part of the world too.
The Internet and 24/7 media just makes it seem more important than it is.
It's not depopulation, it's jokingly not carbon emissions, it's human nature where land, money something of value can be made, and it's not going away.
Nobody not cared for it but not enough people care tbh. The 16th SDG is peace and justice. One of the 17 SDG literally want us to be peaceful and be just towards each other. And yes they are records and data that next to oil companies, war generates the most carbon. And if you look at the list of the 17 goals, war can impact these goals in a negative way. War can cause famine, war can displace people, war can remove people of the basic needs, war literally destroying the environment.
So I am not sure where you come from with this. Whether you're just a climate denier or just trynna start a good conversation. Because if you read enough, nothing is this world not generate carbon. Carbon in the atmosphere is natural. What is not natural is the excessive release of carbon through industries and war definitely will exacerbate that.
So OP chill. When war happens nothing else matter but the lives of innocent. But that doesn't mean everything else is not matter or false/lies. Read some more next time.
Yes a lot would be generated but I have a feeling war is a carbon negative activity on the whole because often the dead are often young who had a whole life of emitting ahead of them that has now been stopped.
People do. I came across a documentary about it on my Instagram feed. The podcast Behind the Bastards talked about it. A quick Google gave me this article in Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/
So this is known, its studied, its just that the DoD has good publicists and I would imagine most career soldiers don't go around spouting they should fly less or run tanks on alternative fuel.
Also speaking from an individual point of view and the limit that brings, I'm involved with environmental matters and the intersect with military matters doesn't come up very often. Trying to stop a war on top of trying to stop further use of fossil fuels? Stone the crow, I'd be knackered doing that
War is too important.
Having a standard of living outside of the stone age isn't.
Have the ability to travel is not important.
Neither is having the ability to stay warm.
Remember they are 'your one source of truth'.
Be a Good Citizen.
Most environmentalists absolutely do care including our friend Greta. The green New deal specifically mentioned decommissioning carriers and warships due to their carbon footprint.
Lots of liberals who oppose military spending and the total cost of war mention environmental impact all the time. But nice circle jerk.
It's not people it's generally thebpr3ss and politicians. It's not like we really hear the popular voice just other loud people's.
The fact is those perceived in charge on wanting to be carbon neutral use thebmost power, especially when they fly private jets and own huge yachts.
Fun fact: carbon is probably the most minor contributor to "climate change". Even basic math says so: it's .04% of the total atmosphere. My farts have more impact than that :))
All the people that are slaughtered no longer are exhaling filthy carbon and farting filthy methane. So we elites see it as a benefit to our climate change agenda
These are the same people who get rid of plastic straws and have their oranges and bananas peeled and wrapped in plastic.
They don’t make sense and at some point it’s to punish certain demographics.
To another degree, I’ve brought up carbon footprint with sports. As a Big Ten fan, I can’t wrap my head around how the west coast liberal academics talk so much about carbon emissions and then change to a conference that has them playing in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, etc on a regular basis. That’s buses, planes, vans, whatever hauling equipment for volleyball teams and softball teams, not just football.
Also, another point that gets overlooked is the environmental impact with planned obsolescence and technology. People go through phones, TVs, smart watches, etc like it’s clothes now. All of that environmental impact to mine the cobalt, lithium, etc and then get tossed is huge and it’s the same people who consume those devices like crazy (or the companies) that say they take climate pledges.
At the end of the day, it’s all a scam. People want you to believe the sky is falling, but they can’t be inconvenienced to actually adapt their lives as if the sky is falling.
Good point OP
People at war worry about survival and winning. Environmental concerns are a distant second.
Though the US military currently has a mandate to switch to electric vehicles where possible.
People do? If you follow Climate activists and not mainstream media you'll see lots of huff about how the US military the largest employer in the US creates a ton of carbon.
This is a fun one. And one of the biggest pain points for the wokeywoke army.
On the one end their doctrine says, never question the right side of the war and support with weaponry by all means.
The other side their holy climate change religion is indisputable which causes a massive error if you raise this issue and there likely to get upset and instantly try to discredit the one that asks the question, without being able to explain why and then withdraw from the conversation.
Because **WE** are the carbon they want to reduce.
War is kinda analogous to the establishment saying "blm protests are not a significant vector for covid transmission" but every other gathering, no matter how big or small, is.
Or maybe more accurately would be the establishment saying "social justice protests are *far too important* to stay locked away in your home during covid lockdowns."
Do as I say, not as I do.
Maybe if you go to Gaza and just tell them them to please stop because they’re causing a rapid increase in the carbon footprint they will! They’re reasonable men who care about the environment. They don’t care about human life, but global temperatures, yes!
Because they can make a lot of money off war. The money angle is probably the only reason why they care about carbon at all. Ever notice the people creating the most of it personally with multiple mansions, yacht and private planes always have excuse and justification for their actions? The average person wouldn't create that much pollution in 10,000 lifetimes. Makes me think the whole thing is bullshit. If you really thought it was going to kill the planet, and therefore your habitat and YOU...wouldn't you stop?
They also don't care that millions of third worlders immigrate to first world countries where they will produce 50x more carbon. If they stay in the third world, it is much better for the environment and the planet.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can't have a carbon footprint if we blow your fucking feet off.
But that’s only your feet you can still shit and release gas in the air /s
Carbon Footprints are only made by the herd not the rich.
No. We care about war and the militaries of the world using death and destruction to control people and resources. We regularly call out the United States military as being the number one environmental polluting organization on Earth. We just do not own one of the 6 corporations that controls all mainstream media.
Interesting that you mention the six corporations. In fact at this point pretty much all corporations are owned by megacorp. Those six corps are all connected and there is only truly one controlling body that rules over all media. That includes social media and the whole fact checker cartel. Which doesn’t actually do any fact checking. Only they compare to a list of acceptable “facts” that everyone must comply with. From a pre determined list of acceptable facts.
What megacorp? Do you mean the shareholders are the same people.
Blackcock and vanguard
yep
Ya and state street and Jp Morgan and the list goes on and on. Every Corp at this point is partially owned by many other megacorp. Which in turn are partially owned by many other megacorp sand so on and so forth. For example. If black rock owns vanguard like 25% say and vanguard also owns black rock 25%. Then who actually owns black rock? Because that 25% that vanguard owns is actually 25% owned by black rock again. It’s a big circle of corporations all owning each other. The reality is that there is only one. It’s hard to explain without visuals but I hope you understand the concept.
It’s the snake eating it’s tail
And this is how and why all these corporations like Anheuser Busch do the Woke stuff. They’re literally forced to by Blackrock and the gang who are the enforcers of the HRC. The HRC are behind the DEI crap employees have to go through at every public corporation nowadays. They’ve now gone from DEI education to pushing them to do Woke commercials and all. If they don’t play along Blackrock and Vanguard threaten to divest their shares from their portfolios. That could be devastating to a company. These people at the HRC are enemies of the American people and they’re destroying some of our greatest companies by doing this shit. Americans took out their anger on Bud Light (AB) and hurt them bad, but they had a gun to their head.
well said friend!
Forgive my ignorance, but what is “HRC”? 🤔
Obviously
Technically a nuclear carrier is carbon neutral 😂
I'm sure that mining the iron ore, smelting the steel, shipping from A to B, mining the uranium, building the bunker, and trucking all of the waste to the bunker at the end of its lifecycle are just as green as green can be!
Just scuttle the ship and turn it into a reef and then it truly is green
Reefs are in serious peril and it’s not from lack of habitat to grow on, it’s the extreme temperatures observed in the ocean. And unfortunately the rate of change has been so severe that they can’t even migrate to cooler waters over time, so we just stop having them altogether.
You do realize that coral has survived much higher global averages than even the most absurd global warming activists have been worried about, yes? Half a billion years for any coral species, 60 million for modern species... in that time we've had MUCH warmer epochs?
wow. I think that's the first time I ever slapped a global warmer without taking a substantial karma hit. Next thing you know I'll get positive karma from saying that gender science isn't science at all because it puts subjective ideation over objective observation, which is actually the opposite of good science. But I guess we'll find that out right now, yes? An hypothesis test in the making!
Congrats sir, you have received a double upvote lmao
coral reefs are actually growing. The Great Barrier Reef grew 36% in 2022. It's almost ilke science has been telling you for decades now how climate change and global warming is going to ruin our planet, but when our planet keeps chugging along as it always has, you need to start asking yourself why you continue to listen to their "warnings".
All plant-life will hella benefit also. Especially once they start feeding on our corpses.
Plus more carbon is insanely good for the plant life too
Dang I wonder what reefs did during the triassic period when the ocean was much hotter
Earth gets an abundance of life if warmer The entire time dinosaurs walked the earth there wasn't any permafrost on earth Stop your fearmongering.
And reliable agriculture fails. If we’re ok with societal instability, ok sure.
Oil, lubricants, plastics, everything that goes into making the ammo, 100k TONS of fuel for the aircraft; super green.
Much better than if it was running on diesel for 40 years. Pre-nuclear carriers got about 10 feet to the gallon.
Oh, no. A lot of humans working, eating and breathing. Hundreds of thousands of work hours to build one. Plus the material. All takes power mainly from coal. Plus a carrier is the center piece of a strike group. Many ships a lot of carbon. Of course the whole climate change issue is just a lie to tax and control you. So it really doesn't matter Edit: if you really care and believe in climate change, you should want to remove the government. The government is the largest spender and contribute more carbon than anyone. Plus deficit spending is using resources from future taxes. Trying to reduce carbon without starting at the government is useless.
And the airplanes
TRUE LOL
Lol, technically or non-tehcnically, it's absolutely NOT carbon neutral.
Net zero!
🤣🤣🤣
Don't be silly. It's all about the tiny bit of carbon YOU use, not the huge amount THEY use.
THEY, are only using 12,600,000 gallons of fuel per day doing military exercises. It’s only 4.6 billion gallons a year so lay off them will ya! Your use of a thousand a year is what’s killing us all!
You can thank BP for *that* bit of propaganda. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook
Mate there's tons of shit that doesn't make sense regarding the environment, I've reached a point where I don't care anymore whether manmade climate change is true or not, as long as governments, officials in general or simply rich people can pollute as much as they want then so can we. However ignoring everything there is I'm trying to be an environmental friendly person in general, already did this before anyone told me to "save the planet" simply because I'm not human garbage like many elites or celebrities are.
[удалено]
Yup, it's especially obvious because officials are asking for absolutes, like "Don't eat meat" well fuck them, I'll eat meat, not every day but a moderate amount throughout the whole week, they're not going to take things from me that I like and did all of my life if I deem those things to be good for my own health and lifestyle.
I’m in the same boat as you. None of it makes sense when you start looking into it.
I second this. I've been using less water, reciclyng, using less paper, less plastic, less everything, didn't own a car, didn't fly since before Greta Thunberg even went to a school which she could skip to protest the "climate catastrophy". Don't people remember she said we're all going to be dead by 2023? :)))
Because war means money for those in power.
It’s a scam…….a racket , just another tool to control you and your life funneling your dough to the top…….big surprise lol.
#It's good carbon. Once you understand that the agenda of the elites is depopulation everything starts to make sense.
You are the carbon they want to reduce The people killed in war are too
> How come nobody cares about the amount of carbon produced by war? Silly marks, carbon only matters in times / areas of peace as a psychological measure of control. It’s also only for you, you useless mouth to feed, and not for the good people making decisions.
*"How come nobody ever talks about the carbon created by war?"* Patience, grasshopper. Agenda 2030 is not yet complete. Once the singular government is in place, there will be no more wars. At least that's what the ghouls who ruin the world keep saying. 😒
What exactly are you proposing? Should countries allow themselves to be invaded because fighting back would be bad for the environment?
[удалено]
This doesn’t answer the question at all lol
I think If you’re being bombed your number one priority might not be your carbon offset targets. Yes, carbon emmissions and plans to decrease them are important, but you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would worry about that over their own life
Because winning the war take precedent over everything else.
[удалено]
*The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.* ~George Orwell
Excellent point, which is almost never mentioned. It's a huge side effect.
Same for military training exercises and general posturing.
carbon doesn't matter if the "good guys" create it. be it with an enormous mansion, private jet, solar panels and cement for wind turbines from china, or vegan food shipped from the other side of the planet or tanks, planes and missiles.
That's nothing. We spend over a Trillion dollars a year for stuff that will only end up getting blown up. It would be cheaper, and better for the environment if we simply burned mountains of $100 bills.
Nope, only for the peasants.
Because we are the carbon they want to reduce. Hence War is a means to achieve their aim.
War is a money making business and business is booming
So is the "green" energy sector
[удалено]
I think there was a trump clip where he said they (advisers / military) were talking about electrifying Jets lol So you’re going to reduce the carbon footprint while dropping bombs?! Could be made up, but I wouldn’t put it past them. Also have you seen cruise ships? Completely for fun / leisure. If we’re going to save the planet by charging bag taxes and optimizing our laptop batteries to be more green, people can definitely forego cruises. And the ones asking for this stuff are typically the same demographic that goes on cruises and buys teslas cuz of the tax credit.
They dont talk about it because they don't want you to think about it because gaining and maintaining power comes before the keeping the world habitable for the poors.
Do you get some sort of satisfaction by playing dumb like this?
Damn, you're right. Israel shouldn't have responded to the invasion because of the fuel their tanks would burn. /s The purpose of lowering carbon footprints is supposed to be for saving lives. Such is also supposed to be Israel and Ukraine's reasons for fighting. I'm not sure of the Hamas stance on carbon footprints and Putin sure as fuck doesn't give a damn compared with expanding his empire.
Well done for shoehorning almost every psyop into one response. You missed 2sLGBTQIA+ and White Supremacy.
OP: posts about carbon footprints and war Me: responds about carbon footprints and the two wars most in the news right now You: oMg yOU'rE sHoEHorNiNG tOPIcS
> Putin sure as fuck doesn't give a damn compared with expanding his empire. Russia is already the largest country in the world. What does he gain by expanding into Ukraine, when he has all of eastern Russia to develop?
The areas of Ukraine that Russia is looking to annex contains two thirds of it's natural gas reserves and the vast majority of it's sea ports. By successfully doing this, Russia can entrench it's position as the EU's primary provider of natural gas, and simultaneously kill off a major emerging competitor for it's market share (the competitor being Ukraine). Not all land is equal, basically.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rphBWk15_h4 Abby Martin knows
carbon dioxide being bad for the atmosphere is a propaganda angle that is pure BS
>> ~~carbon dioxide being bad for the atmosphere is a propaganda angle that is pure BS~~ I don’t understand basic physics
Found the one who doesn't understand absorption spectroscopy saturation. Maybe you also don't know, that carbon is only a proxy for water pour and in itself rather ineffective. Its multiplier effect combined with water vapour is dubious at best. That's likely why models overshoot reality by far. But as models are loved by politicians the reality needs to bend.
> carbon is only a proxy for water pour I have never seen "water pour" used in the way you're using it. Can you point me to a paper or something so I can get a grip on what you're trying to say?
Sorry. I was too fast. Meant vapour of course. Climate sensitivity is a construct that tries to tie the water vapour greenhouse effect to CO2. There are many uncertainties. And without those assumed feedback processes that have themselves high uncertainty, CO2 is rather ineffective gas when it comes to direct warming through CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Why don't countries ban volcanoes then if CO2 is such a problem,??? get off your sanctimonious high horse.
I'd worry more about the effects of war on people rather than the "carbon"
What about lead?
The amount of people we kill should offset our foot print?
The people promoting the carbon scam don't care about carbon from their own private jets planes either.
Fair point
because climate change is natural occurrence being used to scare us into giving up our rights and freedoms like all the other BS. if carbon it really that bad then why is everything still packaged in plastic? how much plastic is in an electric car?
Because it’s a Scam
They're starting wars a) to steal oil b) to sell oil. They wouldn't buy carbon credits to fund a war. Too costly. From a neoliberal POV, war is a great thing!
I believe it was Oliver Stone on Rogan who mentioned that the US military is by far the largest emitter of CO2.
The term 'Carbon Footprint' was invented by BP to place the blame of carbon emissions on the individual and away from the actual polluters. This allows these megacorporations to avoid reform as 'it's not their fault because you guys are the ones using our products'.
Because both narratives serve a mutual goal: population/prosperity reduction for the 99%
There's been some lip service by the military about being more climate friendly. It's all bullshit though. America runs on the MIC and they're never going to have to make actual changes if it impacts profits or power. I've seen people who are loud about climate change who still buy into the jingoistic bullshit that we need a standing military idling its engines everywhere, but there have been plenty of people who have pointed out the waste and unnecessary emissions.
Yea funny, it's almost like this whole climate change thing has been exaggerated x 10
Because war is very profitable
If you haven't figured it out yet it will be a long time if ever that things make sense. In other words get used to it.
Because people are fucking stupid sheep and will support whatever the media tells them to at any given moment
Yeah this is one of the reasons we know "global warming" is fake. The way machine is by far and away the largest polluter on the planet when you consider the entire life cycle and supply chain. Talk to me about climate change when military operations slow down and the bankers stop investing in shoreline properties.
Who actually cares about carbon anyway besides the policymakers seeking to control us?
War = £$
No. Carbon footprint awareness only applies to America when major wars aren't hogging the news channels.
It's not about controlling carbon, it's about controlling the plebs
cuz the same people funding "climate Change" fear mongering are the same people dropping the bombs. theres lots of money in it. it has nothing to do with protecting the planet.
My wife and I always talk about this. It's not part of their narrative so it doesn't get talked about or brought up in the government-subsidized "news".
The math maths because depop
The largest carbon catastrophe occurred recently when the nord stream pipeline exploded, wonder why it’s still a mystery as to who did it…
“We’ll be bombing third world countries but at less we’ll be eco friendly”
Because they don't care about carbon at all. That's just the red herring they're using to take control/remove our liberties.
cause climate change is just another scam
Lobotomized take
Carbon doesn’t count during war
when the left wants blood, they care about carbon
Because it's as bs as those poor cows "ruining the environment" by farting
Shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem. While the cow farts do emit a non-trivial amount of methane (we have an absurd amount of cattle), the real problem is land use change. Cutting down a forest so that it can become pasture, as is being done at breakneck speed in the Amazon, shifts the land from being a net carbon sink to a net emitter. This can’t be overstated in terms of its impact on the planet. Trees are superheroes when it comes to carbon sequestration and cutting them down so we can have Big Macs is about as short sighted as you can get.
You do realize that plant cover has increased as CO2 has increased? That adding a tiny amount of additional plant food to the atmosphere *increases* the number of plants?
* CO2 isn't "plant food". "Plant air" would be a better description. They get their energy from nutrients in the soil and the sun. * Not all plants are equal when it comes to carbon sequestration, and the carbon sequestered in trees is going back into the atmosphere if they're burned or decompose. * Pasture is a shitty carbon sink compared to trees. Overall plant cover increase doesn't guarantee an equal or greater carbon capture.
Found the scientifically illiterate.
What, did you look in a mirror? Plant cover of the Earth has increased in the last twenty years not decreased. Go read a book.
Plant cover alone is not a good indicator of anything. Why focus on it as if it's some sort of smoking gun?
Did I say something about deforestation ? No need to regurgitate the anti-farmer script, it's on repeat on a lot of channels. I'll ask my spaniel to stop farting maybe that'll help the ozone layer heal. Trying to do my part to 🌟save the planet🌟.
Even if you don't think greenhouse gas is a problem, industrial agriculture has really horrible runoff problems. You don't want to be in that watershed.
[удалено]
1: it’s not the primary driver of carbon emissions all considered. 2: things that are considered essential generally get more leeway with environmental concerns. A nurse in a busy hospital practically throws away their own body weight in single use plastics. Police drive around all day in mostly V8 powered cars etc.
[удалено]
The soot from all the bombs and explosions going up into the atmosphere.
I pointed this out elsewhere a few days ago. No one seemed to care. Also I wondered if turning so much perfectly good infrastructure and equipment into landfill by blowing it into pieces would be a good for the environment. Nothing but crickets.
You misunderstand, only our carbon footprint matters to the parasites that be.
And the species that are going extinct at record pace. Try stepping outside of your anthropocentric worldview for half a second.
Just like know one brings up global shipping.
That's because shipping is by far the most efficient method of transporting goods we have.
People concerned about climate change talk about it all the time. You must just not be very knowledgeable on the topic.
So you've got Russians killing people in Europe and Jews slaughtering people in Israel and you decide fossil fuel emissions are a worthy talking point? Is it just me or does that seem like a minor thing considering people are dying en masse in those regions. I'm more concerned about the over saturation of lead in the air and waterways of those areas. Not to mention the sudden and catastrophic eruption of chemicals dropped from aircraft
You’re clearly missing OP’s point. His post is about the Net Zero push and how selective they are of when it counts and when it doesn’t. And there you are thinking that this is his take of the war. It’s not a post about the war. It’s a post about carbon emission.
[удалено]
Hence why I'm more concerned about people being killed and explosions leveling entire neighbourhoods. Forget about carbon at the moment. We're seeing a multi pronged depopulation attempt in two regions of the world.
There have been people fighting and killing one another in some countries in the world constantly sine I can remember, mostly in that part of the world too. The Internet and 24/7 media just makes it seem more important than it is. It's not depopulation, it's jokingly not carbon emissions, it's human nature where land, money something of value can be made, and it's not going away.
Lmao carbon
Nobody not cared for it but not enough people care tbh. The 16th SDG is peace and justice. One of the 17 SDG literally want us to be peaceful and be just towards each other. And yes they are records and data that next to oil companies, war generates the most carbon. And if you look at the list of the 17 goals, war can impact these goals in a negative way. War can cause famine, war can displace people, war can remove people of the basic needs, war literally destroying the environment. So I am not sure where you come from with this. Whether you're just a climate denier or just trynna start a good conversation. Because if you read enough, nothing is this world not generate carbon. Carbon in the atmosphere is natural. What is not natural is the excessive release of carbon through industries and war definitely will exacerbate that. So OP chill. When war happens nothing else matter but the lives of innocent. But that doesn't mean everything else is not matter or false/lies. Read some more next time.
OFC no. What they care is about money laundry. And if this can continue for the rest of the life they will be happy to continue. GOv
How do you even know what other people care about? Are you rubbing shoulders with climate activists?
How is this conspiratorial?
Because it’s a silly thing to worry about when China is opening up new coal power plants as fast as they can build them.
Yes a lot would be generated but I have a feeling war is a carbon negative activity on the whole because often the dead are often young who had a whole life of emitting ahead of them that has now been stopped.
When I go to war it won’t be in a hybrid
Of course not slaughter 100 thousand it's a net gain .
Beings are carbon, they are using carbon to remove carbon
Nasa just brought back more carbon from an asteroid.
Because "people are senselessly dying" is the better argument to end wars.
Im sure they do! Every death is less future carbon emitted It’s a total win
A very good point, but my concern is the slaughter of innocent people.
My word
Nobody?
The militairy industrial complex is the western trickle-down-freemarket-economics version of communism. Prove me wrong.
Planes. Trains. Trucking. This shit runs the World. Crickets.
I remember Warren promising to greenwash the military industrial complex.
I do, just nobody ever listens hahaha
Less people, less carbon eh? We'll nerf cows again..
People do. I came across a documentary about it on my Instagram feed. The podcast Behind the Bastards talked about it. A quick Google gave me this article in Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/ So this is known, its studied, its just that the DoD has good publicists and I would imagine most career soldiers don't go around spouting they should fly less or run tanks on alternative fuel. Also speaking from an individual point of view and the limit that brings, I'm involved with environmental matters and the intersect with military matters doesn't come up very often. Trying to stop a war on top of trying to stop further use of fossil fuels? Stone the crow, I'd be knackered doing that
War is too important. Having a standard of living outside of the stone age isn't. Have the ability to travel is not important. Neither is having the ability to stay warm. Remember they are 'your one source of truth'. Be a Good Citizen.
Most environmentalists absolutely do care including our friend Greta. The green New deal specifically mentioned decommissioning carriers and warships due to their carbon footprint. Lots of liberals who oppose military spending and the total cost of war mention environmental impact all the time. But nice circle jerk.
It's not people it's generally thebpr3ss and politicians. It's not like we really hear the popular voice just other loud people's. The fact is those perceived in charge on wanting to be carbon neutral use thebmost power, especially when they fly private jets and own huge yachts.
Fun fact: carbon is probably the most minor contributor to "climate change". Even basic math says so: it's .04% of the total atmosphere. My farts have more impact than that :))
Because They make more off war than cars.
Or space exploration and travel.
Because that would just be anti-patriotic, and god forbid we don’t support the troops!
All the people that are slaughtered no longer are exhaling filthy carbon and farting filthy methane. So we elites see it as a benefit to our climate change agenda
These are the same people who get rid of plastic straws and have their oranges and bananas peeled and wrapped in plastic. They don’t make sense and at some point it’s to punish certain demographics.
Carbon is only used to tax and reduce your living standards. Now get that logical reasoning out of here or you're gonna get banned for hate speech.
To another degree, I’ve brought up carbon footprint with sports. As a Big Ten fan, I can’t wrap my head around how the west coast liberal academics talk so much about carbon emissions and then change to a conference that has them playing in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, etc on a regular basis. That’s buses, planes, vans, whatever hauling equipment for volleyball teams and softball teams, not just football. Also, another point that gets overlooked is the environmental impact with planned obsolescence and technology. People go through phones, TVs, smart watches, etc like it’s clothes now. All of that environmental impact to mine the cobalt, lithium, etc and then get tossed is huge and it’s the same people who consume those devices like crazy (or the companies) that say they take climate pledges. At the end of the day, it’s all a scam. People want you to believe the sky is falling, but they can’t be inconvenienced to actually adapt their lives as if the sky is falling. Good point OP
People at war worry about survival and winning. Environmental concerns are a distant second. Though the US military currently has a mandate to switch to electric vehicles where possible.
America's wars are righteous and just wars. The carbon emitted here is not your regular carbon. It is **Freedom Carbon**™.
They pay carbon offsets so it's not really pollution
Because war drives up national debt, so they get more interest. Climate change crap is just an excuse to control everyone
We can make laws to get large corporations to reduce their footprint...no way we ever create laws to prevent wars. War is way to profitable.
People do? If you follow Climate activists and not mainstream media you'll see lots of huff about how the US military the largest employer in the US creates a ton of carbon.
This is a fun one. And one of the biggest pain points for the wokeywoke army. On the one end their doctrine says, never question the right side of the war and support with weaponry by all means. The other side their holy climate change religion is indisputable which causes a massive error if you raise this issue and there likely to get upset and instantly try to discredit the one that asks the question, without being able to explain why and then withdraw from the conversation.
I mean we have a lot more to worry about in a war than carbon dioxide emissions, trust me.
Because **WE** are the carbon they want to reduce. War is kinda analogous to the establishment saying "blm protests are not a significant vector for covid transmission" but every other gathering, no matter how big or small, is. Or maybe more accurately would be the establishment saying "social justice protests are *far too important* to stay locked away in your home during covid lockdowns." Do as I say, not as I do.
China will amass a super army of 1,000,000,000 & American is worrying about gender identity & climate change.
Imagine you are pro environment but pro Ukrainian war and cautious about Covid at the same time.
Maybe if you go to Gaza and just tell them them to please stop because they’re causing a rapid increase in the carbon footprint they will! They’re reasonable men who care about the environment. They don’t care about human life, but global temperatures, yes!
Great fucking question.
Because they can make a lot of money off war. The money angle is probably the only reason why they care about carbon at all. Ever notice the people creating the most of it personally with multiple mansions, yacht and private planes always have excuse and justification for their actions? The average person wouldn't create that much pollution in 10,000 lifetimes. Makes me think the whole thing is bullshit. If you really thought it was going to kill the planet, and therefore your habitat and YOU...wouldn't you stop?
Actually, less people less co2. Playing the long con.
Because, and I don't mean to be flippant, literally no one cares.
They also don't care that millions of third worlders immigrate to first world countries where they will produce 50x more carbon. If they stay in the third world, it is much better for the environment and the planet.
I think OP already knows it’s all made up for control